Bush's Security on visit to Buckingham Palace

[Radagast]

I've created a monster!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Hemel
*sigh*

May I offer you a top-up spoonful of sense of humour with your morning coffee, JD?



Now in seriousness, my last two remarks were made with tongue firmly in cheek, and I hope that no one will misconstrue ...

i wasn't sure if you were joking or not - because people have actually said this before.

However, the response here concerns me a little Hmmmm ... but surely those who did demonstrate were just using their right for free expression? Isn't that a central tenet of what both we here in the UK and you there in the US believe? Isn't that something that we also would wish to defend, that right?

I do - but I find it distrubing that they don't seem to want to exercise this right to complain about the UN electing countries like Iraq to the disarmament committee or Libya to the Human Rights Committee. They don't seem to march against Libya and others.

Originally posted by The Gaffer
The answer to your question is in the text you quoted from my post. We were just discussing protests against Chinese state visits. I don't know how to make it clearer for you, JD.

That's only ONE example and how many people were brought out to march?

Hmm. Let me think. Now which world leader/s would go around indulging in that sort of behaviour?

I'm not sure. I fyou are implying our president - he has never condemned an entire population for their governments action. Of course if your news is anything like I see on French news - I can see where you get a distorted picture.

[Dwarven Sen]

I think this is getting a bit heated, can we please just calm down an ounce/gram/whatever?

Saying that, i think you're all wrong.
Hehehehehe...

Look it's all over and there was no harm done. If your president was insulted by anything, that's regrettable. Unfortuanelty one of the problems with a democracy is that even demonstrative people get free speech.

I don't know what your opinion of us is in America, but here in a british uni, we didn't want war, we didn't want the chaos caused by it in terms of the upheaval in Iraq, and we blame Bush because he was the most outspoken for this approach, and so with him the main responsibility lies.

That certainly doesn't mean we hold Blair blameless. He did not listen and respond to his public, the people he is meant to represent, but instead tried to work in a manner that put himself forward favourably to America. probably not a bad move on paper, but if he'd thought about it a bit more, he may have tried to do things a little different.

Unfortuanetly he'll probably be able to do this sort of thing for another 5 years because the conservative party haven't sorted themselves out yet.

[The Gaffer]

The problem with Bliar is that he ought to know better; Bush is just doing what comes naturally. The worrying thing is that he (Bliar) seems to have this Thatcher-like belief that he's always right and he never listens to anyone who disagrees with him.

I'm not sure it's a foregone conclusion he'll win next time round. I know lots of Labour voters who will never vote for him again. If the Labour Party had any sense they'd kick him out and get Gordon Brown in.

[Dúnedain]

I find it funny how you Brits speak of your leader. Tony Blair will go down as being one of the best things to ever happen for Great Britain and yet you are all so easy to criticize him. You should only be so lucky to have such a man of strong will and passion for your country. When I watched him speak to your governmental houses earlier in the year, in a sense, I wished he was our President or at least have our President hold the same character qualities that Tony Blair has. You say you wish he were gone, but years from now when he is gone, you will look back and appreciate what you had only to wish it were still there. Didn't people in England question Churchill and want him gone as well, only to find out how valuable he was to your country? History often repeats itself...


By the way, I've read a number of reports that have said over 60% of the people of England agreed with the war and all of that stuff...And that was just 2 weeks ago...

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
When I watched him speak to your governmental houses earlier in the year, in a sense, I wished he was our President or at least have our President hold the same character qualities that Tony Blair has.

That's funny, I wish he was your President too.

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Didn't people in England question Churchill and want him gone as well,

If only history had repeated itself. When we kicked Churchill out of office as soon as WWII was over and elected the Labour government with a landslide they gave us the National Health Service and universal free education.

This time, we elected them with a landslide and they've given us semi-privatised hospitals, hiked university fees, identity cards, presidential-style government and lied to the country to make us go to war.

They have done some good things (e.g. Human Rights Act, devolution) but these are down to the work of Bliar's (increasingly sidelined) ministerial colleagues.

I would vote for them, if they got rid of him.

Originally posted by Dúnedain

By the way, I've read a number of reports that have said over 60% of the people of England agreed with the war and all of that stuff...And that was just 2 weeks ago...

Most Brits agreed with Bush's state visit and welcomed him here. Not sure about your 60% in favour of the war figure, though.

EDIT: looked up the latest poll (ICM):

Opposition to the war has slumped by 12 points since September to only 41% of all voters. At the same time those who believe the war was justified has jumped 9 points to 47% of voters.

Source: Grauniad

(PS - "England" is just one of the four countries that makes up "Britain")

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
(PS - "England" is one of the countries that makes up "Britain")

Well actually - United Kingdom, which includes the occupied territory of Northern Ireland, is the country. Britain, on the other hand, is just the island which is made up of Wales, Scotland and England. All these "territories" at one time were free and independant countries which were taken over by England. Wales has had it's own parliament for a while I believe, Scotland has only just gotten it's own Parliament again.

As for Churchill - you guys actually fired him because he was one of the few people in Europe who said that Hitler was a danger. Churchill repeatedly said something should be done about Hitler and Germany instead of appeasement. If Europe had listened to him - Hitler would have been stopped sooner and the lives of millions and millions of people would have been saved. Again Europe wants to constantly play the appeasement game.

[jerseydevil]

By the way - what exactly is "presidential-style" government?

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
As for Churchill - you guys actually fired him because he was one of the few people in Europe who said that Hitler was a danger.

Yes, that's right, we really wanted Hitler to win. Goddam Churchill went and won the war for us, the twat. It was a load of Americans going on the BBC web site who voted him Greatest Briton of all time a couple of years ago. Left up to us, we would've gone for Oswald Moseley.

I can't decide whether you really are being spectacularly ignorant here, JerseyDevil, or are just trying to be offensive. Probably both, I'd guess.

Scotland voted for Union with England in 1707, and therefore formed a new country, but has always retained a distinct legal, education and financial system.

As for Northern Ireland being an occupied territory...

"Presidential-style" means government by a leader and a group of hand-picked (often unelected) cronies. There is no discussion of policy at cabinet, Parliament is treated with disdain and controversial measures, which have no mandate, are pushed through regardless.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Yes, that's right, we really wanted Hitler to win. Goddam Churchill went and won the war for us, the twat. It was a load of Americans going on the BBC web site who voted him Greatest Briton of all time a couple of years ago. Left up to us, we would've gone for Oswald Moseley.

Well - then you should have listened to Chruchill prior to the war then I suppose. He was the one who lost his job for recommending force BEFORE World War II - because he saw the danger of Hitler. Your government and the rest of Europe chose appeasement. I for one was not willing to repeat the mistakes of old Europe.

I can't decide whether you really are being spectacularly ignorant here, JerseyDevil, or are just trying to be offensive. Probably both, I'd guess.

Actually - I'm probably just being like you - so take your pick.

Scotland voted for Union with England in 1707, and therefore formed a new country, but has always retained a distinct legal, education and financial system.

Well actually - Scotland became part of england through the Monarchial line, PRIOR to this - Scotland was unique country and constantly at war with England. The Scotland line merged with the English line through heriditary rule and a SINLGE monarch ruled both countries.

As for the parliament, which you chose to ignore - Scotland only just obtained it's own parliament seperate from the one located in London, ENGLAND.

As for Northern Ireland being an occupied territory...

Well if it wasn't - then what has the British army been doing there for decades?

"Presidential-style" means government by a leader and a group of hand-picked (often unelected) cronies. There is no discussion of policy at cabinet, Parliament is treated with disdain and controversial measures, which have no mandate, are pushed through regardless.

I guess this is your little british slap at the American system of government. But as with most Europeans - you have no idea about how our government works.

[The Gaffer]

You're totally paranoid. Believe it or not, not everything is a jibe towards the US. I believe many other countries have Presidents, too.

Having a President is fine (especially one that's been voted in), but we don't, so it's not fine when the Prime Minister starts acting like one, because we don't have the same constitutional safeguards.

The Union of the Crowns (when James VI of Scotland became James I of England) in 1603 meant that Scotland and England had the same monarch, but they didn't become the same country until the Act of Union in 1707 (voted for by the Scottish and English Parliaments). It's nicely illustrated in the history of the British flag, the Union Jack.

This Act formed a new country. Saying that Scotland became part of England would be like saying Hawaii became part of Texas when it joined the US of A.

It may interest you to know that the British troops were initially called into Northern Ireland to protect Catholic Nationalists from Protestant Loyalists.

[EDIT] Here's some stuff about it from earlier on in this thread.

Update would be that in the recent elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, extremism won. The DUP (more extreme Unionists opposed to power sharing with Nationalists) and Sinn Fein (political wing of the IRA and more extreme Nationalists opposed to the Union with the UK) have just upped their respective shares of the vote

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
You're totally paranoid. Believe it or not, not everything is a jibe towards the US. I believe many other countries have Presidents, too.

I know other countries have presidents. I'm basing my opinions on your past comments towards the US and I think they are warranted.

Having a President is fine (especially one that's been voted in), but we don't, so it's not fine when the Prime Minister starts acting like one, because we don't have the same constitutional safeguards.

Well then maybe you should get a Constitution that puts these safe guards in place. I never understood what there is to prevent the PM from doing what he wants - unlike in the US where the president can't do anything without Congress.

The Union of the Crowns (when James VI of Scotland became James I of England) in 1603 meant that Scotland and England had the same monarch, but they didn't become the same country until the Act of Union in 1707 (voted for by the Scottish and English Parliaments). It's nicely illustrated in the history of the British flag, the Union Jack.

I am aware of where the Union Jack comes from.

This Act formed a new country. Saying that Scotland became part of England would be like saying Hawaii became part of Texas when it joined the US of A.

Not really - because the ruling 'country" was and is England. The monarchy is English FIRST, the parliament is the parliament that was forced upon King John of ENGLAND through the Magna carta. Great Britain may be made up of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England - but it is ENGLAND that gained control of those areas. If Scotland had - then "British" parliament would be located in Scotland.

It may interest you to know that the British troops were initially called into Northern Ireland to protect Catholic Nationalists from Protestant Loyalists.

Why are they still there then? Mostly it seems that they are there to make sure that Northern Ireland doesn't rejoin Ireland.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Not really - because the ruling 'country" was and is England. The monarchy is English FIRST, the parliament is the parliament that was forced upon King John of ENGLAND through the Magna carta. Great Britain may be made up of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England - but it is ENGLAND that gained control of those areas. If Scotland had - then "British" parliament would be located in Scotland.

Yes really. Go on, click on the link. Magna Carta was ENGLISH and had nothing to do with Scotland, which has had its own monarchy since Kenneth McAlpine in the ninth century.

From the Scottish Parliament web site:

The first record of a Parliament which contains representatives of the commons (burgh commissioners) as well as lords is 1326.

In practice, of course, England has been the dominant partner, having roughly ten times the population, but partnership it is nonetheless.

Originally posted by jerseydevil

Why are they still there then? Mostly it seems that they are there to make sure that Northern Ireland doesn't rejoin Ireland.

Again, click the link. The majority in Northern Ireland want to remain part of the UK.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Yes really. Go on, click on the link. Magna Carta was ENGLISH and had nothing to do with Scotland, which has had its own monarchy since Kenneth McAlpine in the ninth century.

What's your point? I didn't say that the Magna Carta wasn't English nor did I say it had anything to do with Scotland. The Magna Carta DOES however deal with the CURRENT British Parliament - because the CURRENT British Parliament was previously the ENGLISH Parliament. If you bother to read my post you would see that I did not claim that the Magna Carta was Scotish or had anythign to do with Scotland.

In practice, of course, England has been the dominant partner, having roughly ten times the population, but partnership it is nonetheless.

And no matter how much you want to twist history - England gained control over Scotland and Wales - two nations it was constantly at war with. It may be that England brought them into the fold and created a new country - but it does not reduce the fact that ENGLAND won control over Scotland and Wales after many centuries of bloodshed.

The majority in Northern Ireland want to remain part of the UK.

Most of those were English citizens that had moved to ireland during the course of centuries - of course they're loyal to Britain. Ireland was first taken over around the time of Prince John - I believe it was Henry II or Richard I. Prince John lived and managed Ireland before becoming king. I can't remember if he lost ireland during his kingship. There was always bloodshed there during that time.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well then maybe you should get a Constitution that puts these safe guards in place. I never understood what there is to prevent the PM from doing what he wants - unlike in the US where the president can't do anything without Congress.

I'd be all for that. In practice, the Houses of Parliament have ultimate jurisdiction, with the House of Lords having an effective veto (combining the roles of the Senate and Supreme Court).

One of the hideous things Bliar has done is replace the hereditary Lords with appointed ones, thus swapping a system of inherited power for one of patronage.

BTW, I don't know where you get this anti-US idea from. I make no bones about my loathing for Bush, but have lots of admiration for the US Constitution and your country's respect for individual freedom.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It may be that England brought them into the fold and created a new country - but it does not reduce the fact that ENGLAND won control over Scotland and Wales after many centuries of bloodshed.

Well, we're almost agreed then. Except that Scotland CHOSE to merge its government with England, primarily because of economic benefit.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Most of those were English citizens that had moved to ireland during the course of centuries - of course they're loyal to Britain. Ireland was first taken over around the time of Prince John - I believe it was Henry II or Richard I. Prince John lived and managed Ireland before becoming king. I can't remember if he lost ireland during his kingship. There was always bloodshed there during that time.

So, you'd favour ethnic cleansing of the Ulster Protestants then?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
I'd be all for that. In practice, the Houses of Parliament have ultimate jurisdiction, with the House of Lords having an effective veto (combining the roles of the Senate and Supreme Court).

One of the hideous things Bliar has done is replace the hereditary Lords with appointed ones, thus swapping a system of inherited power for one of patronage.

I thought that was because not enough heritary lords want to be involved with parliament.

BTW, I don't know where you get this anti-US idea from. I make no bones about my loathing for Bush, but have lots of admiration for the US Constitution and your country's respect for individual freedom.

having respect for our Constitution - does not mean you don't have contempt for the citizens of this country. Especially since the majoroty of the citizens of this country don't agree with your political beliefs. The majority of Americans also still support the war in Iraq. Also - Bush was supported by Congress also, not to mention 60 - 70% of the American people.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Well, we're almost agreed then. Except that Scotland CHOSE to merge its government with England, primarily because of economic benefit.

Well it's only been the last 100 years that the Monarchy of Britain became truly a figurehead. So once James I took the throne of England - Scotland was pretty much "captured" by England. James started out as a Scottish king, if I remember right, and MOVED to England when he became king. He ruled both countries from England. Not everything was joined at first - he was technically ruling over two countries from one throne. Becuase of this, Scotland - as long as the monarchy survived - would never be free from England again. It essentially ended centuries of bloodshed and war.

So, you'd favour ethnic cleansing of the Ulster Protestants then?

No. However I do support the return of Northern Ireland to Ireland though.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
As for Churchill - you guys actually fired him because he was one of the few people in Europe who said that Hitler was a danger. Churchill repeatedly said something should be done about Hitler and Germany instead of appeasement. If Europe had listened to him - Hitler would have been stopped sooner and the lives of millions and millions of people would have been saved. Again Europe wants to constantly play the appeasement game.

Well, for that matter, if America had joined the League of Nations instead of hiding behind the oceans, WWII would quite probably have been averted altogether.

Or if you had answered Churchill's pleas in 1939 you could possibly have saved yourself 400,000 deaths- giving a warning to Japan and all. Instead, by standing by, you convinced the Japanese (very wrongly) that you were a weak decadent democracy like France and Britain that wouldn't fight.

Like Ronnie Reagan running from Beirut- funny how that never comes up when we 're talking about Clinton and Somalia.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Well, for that matter, if America had joined the League of Nations instead of hiding behind the oceans, WWII would quite probably have been averted altogether.

Sorry - but Germany was a European problem. We had already saved Europe's ass 20 years before. So if EUROPE had done something about Hitler earlier - WWII would NOT have happened. Also - if Europe had listened to our argument against the Treaty of Versaille - Germany would not have felt the need for revenge. As for the League of Nations - Europe created it into a do nothing organization - that is why Congress rejected the approval to join.

Or if you had answered Churchill's pleas in 1939 you could possibly have saved yourself 400,000 deaths- giving a warning to Japan and all. Instead, by standing by, you convinced the Japanese (very wrongly) that you were a weak decadent democracy like France and Britain that wouldn't fight.

Pleas for what? Churchill just wanted us to help against Germany. Where was Europe helping America to continue the fight in the Pacific after Germany was defeated. You know - there is the controversy as to whether we purposely allowed the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor to get us into the war. I don't believe that - but it's still out there.

Obviously Europe just feel it's America's fault we didn't get you out the misses you kept getting yourselves into during the 20th century.

Like Ronnie Reagan running from Beirut- funny how that never comes up when we 're talking about Clinton and Somalia.

there were about 150 killed in Beirut. Not just 10 - 20 like in Somalia.